In accordance to a recent research, we're not overly impressed with Rupert Defense news Murdoch's plans to charge for usage of his online information sites. In the end, in an age when we can generally read about major occasions on Twitter before the news stations statement them, why would we ever wish pay for usage of their content?
However, I'd, and frequently do, pay for quality and 'high-class' news. I would never spend a penny for just one of the shrinking number of totally free newspapers passed out on my way to function in a early morning, but I would pay for a Sunday broadsheet with all its extras and trimmings (despite the fact that the chances of me in fact reading lots of pages are extremely small).
I have also been known to sign up to a paid members' area on the website of a particular football group (which shall remain nameless) to gain usage of extra content not available on the primary website: video interviews and press conferences, highlights of reserve and youth group matches, live radio commentary on match days.
Would I pay to read The Sun online? No. There are usually no more than 2 paragraphs in each image-dominated content anyway. It only costs a few pennies to buy genuine therefore there wouldn't end up being much value in using its site. The Times? Maybe, but only when all the quality information outlets starting charging, otherwise I'd just go for the free one.
Using a Credit Card designed for a 20p Content?
I'm not sure how much Mr Murdoch really wants to charge his users to learn an article, but I'm guessing there is going to be some sort of accounts that needs setting up. I certainly couldn't end up being bothered to obtain my wallet out each time I wanted to learn something and I would be very hesitant to invest in subscribing.
On the other hand, if they had a similar system to iTunes, whereby you merely get into your password to gain usage of a paid article as well as your card is billed accordingly, that might make a little more sense. But, easily had to do that for every major news provider, it would become extremely tiresome.
Ultimately, they could be shooting themselves in the foot to some extent. If the website makes it harder and much less easy for me personally to read articles, I'll probably go elsewhere. I would assume that I'd always be in a position to browse the news for free on the BBC's internet site, which would not be very good news for the advertising income of the Murdoch online empire.
Copycats
Let's assume that I actually wished to read an article on a paid site so badly that I handed over my credit card details to them, what would stop myself 'reporting' on what this article said on my freely obtainable blog? I would imagine it might be very difficult for a newspaper group to prevent a large number of bloggers disseminating the info freely to their users who would gain plenty of traffic in the process.
Recipe for Success?
The achievement or failing of paid news is in the method used to charge and engage with users, assuming that the users value this content highly enough to deem it worth paying for.
